June 7, 2023

7:00 P.M. on June 7, 2023

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: Nancy Dunnell and Wes Johnson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve–Marshall/Tom. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 3, 2023- Motion to approve- Dave/Monica. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Application #23-06CU by Shane Meyer: A 4.25-acre tract of land in the NE¼NE¼ in Section Thirty-four (34), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.34.11.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District.

Shane Meyer was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.

Name of Applicant: Shane Meyer Date: June 7, 2023

Location/Legal Description: A 4.25 acre tract of land in the NE1/4NE1/4, Section Thirty-four (34), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.34.11.010.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Recreational development.

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 28^thStreet NW.

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural Residential.

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Upgraded sewer system.

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing well and upgraded sewer system.

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? 2’x3’ sign by driveway.

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Plenty of space in yard.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1. Terminates upon sale or transfer of the property.

2. Maximum occupancy of twelve (12) people.

3. Follow conditions outlined in the application.

4. No rental until sewer system is upgraded.

5. Follow Minnesota Department of Health guidelines, if applicable.

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Tom/Marshall. All in favor.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-07CU by Michael Hangsleben: Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Schmidt-Waag Subdivision, Government Lot Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.53.01.110. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing of an access to Lake of the Woods.

Mr. Hangslaben was present for the meeting to discuss the request with the board and answer any questions. Questions were asked about the amount of material to be moved and whether the activity might interfere with the existing septic system. Access will be on the South side of the cabin. One letter was entered into the minutes. The board then moved to the findings of fact.

Name of Applicant: Michael Hangslaben Date: May 3, 2023

Location/Legal Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Schmidt-Waag Subdivision, Government Lot Two (2), Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33). – Parcel ID# 16.53.01.110.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing of an access to Lake of the Woods.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Recreational lake access.

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

9) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

10) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.

11) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

12) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rock rip rap.

13) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

14) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Ramp on neighboring property.

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Lake access.

11) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 14) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________

15) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

16) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

18) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

19) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

20) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

21) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

6. Follow DNR guidelines for boat ramp.

7. Must be ten (10) feet from lot line.

8. Maintain erosion control measures during and after construction.

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Marshall/Tom. All in favor.

Planning Commission – Old Business

– Consideration of Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Discussion topics include Short Term Vacation Rental new section. Discussion about adding people by bringing in a camper or kids in a tent. This is specifically addressed in ordinance. Discussion about dictating specific quiet hours. Changes to ordinance will make STVR’s an IUP instead of a CUP. Josh noted that the ordinance will now have specific language about landowner must have COC in hand prior to operation of a short term rental including when a Winter Agreement has been issued. This allows the Board of Adjustment to move ahead with approving a STVR during winter months, but not allowing operation until the septic system has been properly inspected.

Motion to accept Short Term Vacation Rental Application as drafted by Monica/Marshall. All in favor. Motion to Adjourn at 7:54 PM- Marshall/Tom. All in favor.

June 1, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 1, 2022

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen, Wes Johnson, Marshall Nelson and Dave Marhula. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Dave/Ken. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 4, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.

Planning Commission: New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-09CU by Robert Erickson: Tracts located in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter in Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.28.21.000, 19.28.21.010, 19.28.21.020. Applicant, as required by Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 902, is requesting the cumulative movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Bostic Creek for the purpose of a shoreline rip rap project. Bostic Creek is a tributary river segment.

Bob Erickson explained the history of the seawall and past rip rap projects with the group. There was no public correspondence.

The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Prevent shore erosion

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Prevent erosion, bank stabilization

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not?

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Stabilize the shoreline

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?

YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Prevent erosion

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) Why or why not?

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) Why or why not?

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES( X )NO( )N/A( ) Why or why not? Reason for the project

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not?

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not?

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not?

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not?

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

Why or why not?

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1.) Applicant to use typical cross-section design

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( X ) Denied ( )

Motion to Approve with Conditions- Marshall/Ken. All in favor.

Motion to Adjourn at 7:21PM – Monica/Wes. All in favor.

June 2, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 2, 2021

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Wes Johnson, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, and Reed McFarlane. The following members were absent: Scott Head and Marshall Nelson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Keith Aune, Travis Barclay, Jon Waibel, and Brian Ney.

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.

Approval of the Agenda:

Motion to approve agenda – K/D

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 5, 2021 – R/W

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-05V by Gary Kullhem and Travis Barclay: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.62.02.010 and 19.62.02.020. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Sections 503.7 and 605 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure at less than the required fifty (50) Right-of-Way setback from State Highway 172 NW and split two non conforming lots of record under common ownership in a Commercial-Recreation Zoning District.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Kullhem approached the table and explained he was the representative for this request. Mr. Kullhem explained that the property has been owned by himself for roughly six years. Mr. Barclay then approached the table and explained he was a representative as a prospective owner of the lot, should it split and wanted to place a 44’ x 70’ shop, encroaching the allowed setbacks. Discussion between the Board, Mr. Kullhem, and Mr. Barclay ensued. Keith Aune (nearby resident near the parcel in question at lot 9). He posed questions regarding the well that services rainy river retreat, and wanted to better grasp the implications the new development would have on this well. They discussed the lot size (already nonconforming), setback requirements, and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District.

Mio noted written correspondence was received from Steve Rutzel (nearby resident on lot 5), Kent Buschel Spears, David Lang, Linda Straus regarding taxes, the shared well, and trash/recycling/fish cleaning….etc, and the upkeep of the road/ increase of traffic. With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Gary Kullhem Date: June 2, 2021

Parcel #: 19.62.02.010 and 19.62.02.020

Variance Application #: 21-05V

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria:

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance?

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Currently commercial.

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control?

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remains commercial and it is suitable to place a workshop in that area.

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and county setbacks.

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size.

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not change.

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and county setbacks. Condition(s):

1) To be used only for commercial use.

2) Building start must be completed by December 31, 2023.

3) Lot sale from lot split can occur at anytime after June 2, 2021.

4) Living quarter concerns will be addressed by MDH process.

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET.

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: D/W. All in favor, none opposed.

With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting.

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: K/D. All in favor, none opposed. Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: D/R. All in favor, none opposed. Planning Commission – Old Business

– Consideration of Final Plat of Hooper Creek: A parcel of land located in Government Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is requesting to create sixteen (16) tracts for a residential development.

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from Hooper Creek LLC was present and to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Brian Ney stated he could be the representative for Hooper Creek, LLC. This was tabled last discussion as per deficiencies with the submittal of the final plat, and the changes have now been rectified. Mio noted no further written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Motion to Approve Final Plat: D/R. All in favor, none opposed.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-09CU by Leroy Howard: Lot 3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of constructing a private boat ramp.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr Howard was present as the current landowner. Mr. Mio suggested that the removal of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material within the basin area should also be added to the permit, which is outside the shore impact zone.

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of

Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Leroy Howard

Date: June 2, 2021

Location/Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel

ID# 31.53.02.030

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of constructing a private boat ramp.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Expansion and upgrade of an existing ramp.

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not?

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Ramp will be bermed.

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Vegetative cover will be restored to previous state

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? It’s a boat launch so it needs to be within the floodplain/way of the river.

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Ramp will be bermed.

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not?

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remains Rural Residential.

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? It’s a boat ramp/launch.

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? No change.

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not needed.

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not needed.

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: This CUP, also includes more than fifty (50) yards in non-shore impact zone. Vegetative cover must be planted to subdue erosion.

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )

Motion to Approve with Conditions: D/K. All in favor, none opposed.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-10CU by Nicholas and Jessie Anthony: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section Twenty six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential

Development (R2) Zoning District.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain their request. Jon Waibel came to the table and explained he was the representative for the project in lieu of the landowners. He explained the landowners are looking to rent this property out and are aware of the MDH regulations regarding the well and parking, and a compliance inspection has been completed for the existing septic system. The landowners have indicated that this will be more used as a winter rental rather than a summer rental and there are no current plans to begin renting it out this summer. They discussed MDH guidelines and indicated to the representative that the landowners must complete and provide all applicable information to MDH prior to the conditional use.

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Nicholas and Jessie Anthony

Date: June 2, 2021

Location/Legal Description: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,

Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remote area.

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Must comply with MDH guidelines.

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not?

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Access to MN172

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural Residential.

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Individual Septic System with compliance inspection.

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Individual Septic System and Private Wells (x2)

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not?

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? No change or additional traffic as before.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1.) This CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property.

2.) Must meet MDH requirements.

3.) Must pay lodging tax.

4.) Quiet time 10 pm to 6 am.

5.) Must meet State Fire Code.

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: K/D. All in favor, none opposed.

Tom Mio would like to resign as Chairman of the Board. Board asked to table this discussion until the next meeting.

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Adjournment: D/W

June 3, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 3, 2020

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Reed McFarland, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.

Approval of the Agenda:

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Nelson/Marhula

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 6, 2020

M/S/P Hortnvedt/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-04CU by Shawn Wendler & Shawna Brasgalla: The North 450 feet of the East 500 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼, Section Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is requesting to operate a small engine repair and maintenance shop in a Rural-Residential (R-2) District.

Mr. Wendler came forward to explain his request. He explained that he would like to do small engine repair including marine, atv, automotive/oil changes/tune ups, etc. He is hoping to expand in the future if all goes well.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Wendler. Number of vehicles, slightly appearance and possible increases in shed/workspace were discussed.

Mr. Mio read a letter in favor of the request into the record.

With no further discussion the Commission moved on to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Shawn Wendler_____________________ Date: June 3, 2020___________

Location/Legal Description: The North 450 feet of the East 500 feet of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4, Section 26, Township 161 North, Range 32 West – Parcel ID #23.26.11.01

Project Proposal: Operate a small engine repair and maintenance shop in a Rural-Residential (R 2) District.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Further business________________________________________

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __County Rd #6_________________________________________

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Agricultural_________________________________________

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Used oil, antifreeze, etc. will be contained. No bathroom facilities__

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Not needed____________________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __One 2’ x 6’on building proposed___________________________

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Use County Rd 6 – no change needed________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _CUP stays with Shawn Wendler_________

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( )

_____________________________________

Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:25pm. Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/McFarlane

June 5, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 5, 2019

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula, Marshall Nelson, and Wes Johnson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Environmental Specialist Dane Lynch.

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.

Approval of the Agenda:

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 6, 2019

M/S/P McFarlane/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– Marshall Nelson – Vic and Jeri Beckel Request

Board of Adjustments – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #19-03V by Roger Knutson: A tract of land in the SW¼ of the SW¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-three (32) West, Parcel ID# 22.28.33.010. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 503.7 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow applicant to construct a storage shed less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback.

Mio asked Mr. Knutson to come to the table and explain his request.

Mr. Knutson explained that he would like to build a storage shed three feet from his East property line, to allow for him to easily back trailers into the shed.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Knutson and the Board. The location of the shed was discussed, and possible alternative locations for the shed was discussed.

Mio read a letter into the record from James Kotila an adjoining property owner.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Roger Knutson Date: June 5, 2019 Parcel #: 22.28.33.010 Variance Application #: 19-02V

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria:

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance?

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Violates 10’ Setback__________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Storage Shed__________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Placement of building site_______________ ___________________________________________________________________________

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Landowner decision ________________ __________________________________________________________________

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _____Will not___________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Other considerations_________________ ___________________________________________________________________

Condition(s):

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET.

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

APPROVED ( ) DENIED ( x )

June 5, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request.

Motion seconded by Marhula.

All in favor, motion passed.

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of Adjustments.

Motion made by Marhula to close Board of Adjustment.

Motion seconded by Nelson

All in favor, motion passed.

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-03CU by Vic and Jeri Beckel: Tract 8, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.28.13.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a fish house storage park consisting of fifteen (15) fish houses in a Rural-Residential District (R-2).

Mio asked Dean Weise to come to the table and explain the request.

Mr. Weise explained that the Vic & Jeri Beckel are looking to store the fish houses on the far eastern portion of the lot to be away from the road.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Weise and the Board. The Board asked about the amount of fish houses and if they would be screened.

Mio read one letter into the record from Mike Bogart.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: _Vic & Jeri Beckel___________________ Date: _June 5, 2019___________

Location/Legal Description: _Tract 8 Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One hundred sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.28.13.010_______________________ Project Proposal: Operate a fish house storage park consisting of fifteen (15) fish houses in a Rural Residential District (R-2).

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ____Fish house storage_____________________________________

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___With conditions_

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ____See conditions_________________________________________

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Storage of fish houses adjacent______________________________

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___See conditions__________________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? __No signage_______________________________________________

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _No parking on-site – Storage only_____________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1) A visual barrier must be established and maintained on three sides (North, South and West) of the storage area with White Spruce not less than five (5) feet high and spaced no further apart than eight (8) feet. These trees are to be planted in a double row and staggered to provide maximum visual screening. Planting of said trees is to be conducted no later than December 31, 2019.

2) Storage area is to be located on the Easterly four-hundred (400) feet of the described property.

3) Storage area is for said fish house business only.

4) No more than fifteen (15) rental fish houses on the property.

5) No client vehicles are to be parked on said property.

6) Damage caused by business activities, and/or general maintenance to the private road, shall be the responsibility of the landowner.

7) No occupation is allowed of said fish houses on site.

8) Off-season storage of business related equipment must be stored out of sight, either inside a structure or within the fish house storage area.

9) The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioner’s may review the conditions placed upon approval within one (1) year of the date of approval and may require the establishment and maintenance of a visual buffer, similar to above, be placed parallel to the westerly boundary of the described property to further enhance the visual screening.

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( )

_____________________________________

Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.

Motion seconded by Horntvedt..

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-04CU by R&J Developments LLC: A tract of land in the SE¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.61.50.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401B of the Lake of the

Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a plumbing and heating business with showroom in a Residential District (R-1).

Mio asked Rick Amundson to come to the table and explain the request.

Mr. Amundson explained that he is looking to build a shop to store his business vehicles and to have a small show room.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Amundson and the Board. The Board asked about his showroom and the products that would be sold on the premise. Also, the size and the appearance of the building was discussed.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: _R&J Developments LLC___________________ Date: _June 5, 2019___________

Location/Legal Description: _ A tract of land in the SE¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.61.50.010_____________________

Project Proposal: Operate a plumbing and heating business with showroom in a Residential District (R-1).

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? __Growth corridor________________________________________

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? __Shared driveway____________________________________

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __State highway – Share driveway________________________

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Adjacent businesses – Growth corridor ______________________

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Built to county specs______________________________________

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Septic & well designed__________________________________ 13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?

YES ( ) NO ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Not necessary______________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Signage on building__________________________________

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Parking on-site_____________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Complete by 12/31/2020__________

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( )

________________________________

Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.

Motion seconded by Nelson

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-05CU by Jamie Gowdy: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Welberg’s Second Addition, Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.68.01.010; 19.68.01.020; 19.68.01.030; 19.68.01.040; 19.68.01.050; and 19.68.01.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate short term vacation rentals on each lot in a Residential District (R-1).

Mio asked Jamie Gowdy and Alan Fish representing Mr. Gowdy to come to the table and explain the request.

Mr. Fish explained that Mr. Gowdy is looking to obtain approval to for the six lots to be able to have short-term vacation rentals located on the lots. Mr. Fish went on to explain that the area is a is located near a golf course as well as a couple resorts.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Fish, Mr. Gowdy and the Board. The Board asked about how the lots would be accessed, the number of lots that were being requested, the proposed layout of the lots. The Board then asked about the restrictive covenants associated with the lots. Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Fish stated that they were working to change the covenants of the property. The board then expressed some concerns regarding the request. Discussion then ensued about between Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Fish and the board about how the boards concerns will be addressed.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Jamie Gowdy Date: June 5, 2019

Location/Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Welberg’s Second Addition, Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.68.01.010; 19.68.01.020; 19.68.01.030; 19.68.01.040; 19.68.01.050; and 19.68.01.060.

Project Proposal: Operate short-term vacation rentals on each lot in a Residential District (R-1).

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Growth corridor____________________________________

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? _New construction meeting covenants and regulations__________

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Adjacent to county road 31________________________________

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Residential_____________________________________________

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _To meet new construction requirements_______________________

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __to meet new requirements________________________________

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? _Housing_______________________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? __No signage___________________________________________

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __on-site per each lot_____________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __Must have covenants changed to allow project_

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( )

____________________________

Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.

Motion seconded by Nelson

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of the proceedings.

June 5, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 5, 2019